Schultz’s arguments about legality seem reasonable and sufficiently explained to me as for a person who has never seen the show. The author successfully emphasizes the progressive and positive aspects of the sitcom without downplaying the importance of the main character’s image in representing people with disabilities. At the same time, the author’s critical approach helps to evaluate the show more objectively in its influence on the formation of heteronormativity and the male gaze. Schultz’s opinion is supported by many studies and research, which increases the degree of confidence in his point of view. However, the relevance of some arguments is doubtful and does not play a key role in understanding the author’s thoughts.
I like the way Schultz confirms the importance of the comedic component in Legit at the beginning of the article. The manner of the sitcom helps to present “ways of analyzing culture through humor” (Schultz 301), which benefit the image of people with disability. However, multiple methods of strengthening the male gaze and heteronormativity in the pilot episode are built on this aspect too. It leads to the fact that many further arguments and proofs of the author are based precisely on comic and frivolous scenes. Consequently, if humor has become an assistant for representing people with disabilities, it has also contributed to the increased stigmatization of the female body in the sitcom.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, many of the author’s arguments and proofs have not been properly developed. For example, the topic of exclusion of disability from the concept of sexual subjectivity seemed to be insufficiently disclosed. The author mentions the theory of Margrit Shildrick about the close connection between sexuality and disability in the media (Schultz 301) but does not reveal this concept in the example of Billy. It follows that the main character of Legit seems fixated on the hegemony of sexuality while the root of the problem itself has not been sufficiently mentioned. The same thing happens with Rosemary Garland Thompson’s research on the number of disabled women (Schultz 303), which in general can be omitted without compromising the research value of the article. Thus, some proofs may be considered poorly disclosed in the context of the analyzed topic.
The author uses the theory of Adrienne Rich to demonstrate the functioning of heteronormativity. In the section devoted to the male gaze and compulsory heterosexuality, Schultz explains how the scene of the pilot episode reinforces the concept mentioned. Constantly repeating the desire to “feel the vagina” (Schultz 302), the main character excludes all non-heteronormative sex options. Therefore, this confirms the author’s original purpose in the article’s research.
Schultz uses statistics to build a link between disability and gender. In the same section, the author uses Rosemary Garland Thompson’s research on the number of women with disabilities (Schultz 303). Proving that women with disabilities are more oppressed than men with disabilities or women, the author shows the strengthening of one aspect by another. This link has a deeper context and is a platform for the following hypothesis, in which the author finds a connection between the stigmatization of disability and sexism.
Continuing the analysis of this section, Schultz uses a quote by Jay Doll Maga to confirm the stigmatization of the body of disabled people and women. The stigma of an “unknown, threatening or devaluing group” (Schultz 303) helps psychologically remove the main character from the females, which becomes an excuse for sexualization. Billy’s male gaze becomes an obligatory part of his cinematic image. As a result, the line between the human attitude towards a woman and excessive sexualization is blurred.
Work Cited
Schultz, James. “Disability and sitcoms: A legit analysis.” The sitcom reader: America re-viewed, still skewed, 2016, pp. 295-304.